Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: aibek Date: May 16, 2013 4:07am
Forum: forums Subject: Re: is widely used by terrorists, do you know that?

The only thing deleting those videos will do is to send the videos, and their intended audience, elsewhere. It is impossible to stop their dissemination, the only thing you can do is to create some inconvenience for their audience.

Is that inconveniencing of others worthwhile? The number of files added to everyday must be in thousands.† To police it would require significant resources. These resources can be used in other ways -- perhaps in scanning more books! To look at it another way, resources would have to be diverted in policing the site, when it would result in no practical benefit.

Further, once IA starts censoring, there will be unending clamour for more and more censoring. You do not care to watch the "terrorist" videos, but there must be other things you care about, some of which others would want censored.

Finally, it is can be argued that stopping dissemination, even if it were possible, is not worthwhile, and is even counterproductive. From Ross Anderson’s Security Engineering (2008):

There was a recent attempt in Europe to introduce a duty on ISPs to filter hate speech, and specifically jihadist websites. Europe has a history of such restrictions … I’m very sceptical about whether such a law would make Europe any safer; banning the writings of the militant Deobandi Muslim sect, to which perhaps a third of Britain’s Muslims belong, is likely to aggravate community tensions more than anything else. Furthermore, research shows that most of the hate literature distributed inside and outside Britain’s mosques is produced or funded by religious institutions from Saudi Arabia [857]. The response of our government is not to stand up to King Abdullah, but to invite him for a state visit. Internet censorship here (as elsewhere) appears to be a displacement activity; it lets the government claim it’s doing something. It’s also likely to encourage all the third-world despots and Asian strongmen who denounce the freedom of speech on the Internet. Better, I’d think, to leave this material in the open, as America does, and let the police monitor the traffic to the worst of the sites, rather than driving [the extremist] Muslim youth to acquire the skills of the Chinese and Burmese at using proxies. In the end, the policy advice to the European Commission was along these lines: they should train the police to use the existing laws better [442]. And while they’re at it, let law enforcement be technology-neutral: the cops should also monitor the young men who sell the hate tracts in the mosques (and if they ever pluck up the courage to prosecute them for breaking the existing laws on incitement to murder, so much the better).

Added later: You can be sure that IA is following the applicable American laws. We are talking about doing something over and above that.

This post was modified by aibek on 2013-05-16 11:07:45